Today On Short Term Memory Theatre

Remember all the moralizing from Team Sanders about Democratic super-delegates? That was so last week. They have a new strategy:

But Sanders campaign aides say they’ll be able to keep Clinton from reaching the 2,383 delegate magic number she’d need to clinch the nomination at the convention and, by being close enough, convince the superdelegates to switch, as some did when they changed from Clinton to Barack Obama in 2008.

Good luck with that. Obama was the clear front-runner when that happened. Sanders is clearly not. Let’s resume the spin cycle:

“Absent Hillary getting out of the race, I think there’s no way that this race isn’t going to be very close in pledged delegates, even if we succeed,” Devine said. “The best outcome for us, given the nature of the system, is a very close advantage at the end.”

Sanders’ superdelegate pitch will likely take the shape of both direct lobbying and a more formal pitch. Sanders’ campaign will argue that voter enthusiasm and holding to the populist principles of the party are on Sanders’ side. They’ll point to their massive, low-dollar online fundraising.

So, going after super-delegates is all principled and moral when done by Team Sanders?

Superdelegates who’ve already endorsed Sanders say they’re already in touch with their uncommitted colleagues, with plans to step up that engagement.

When you have as bad of a night as they had last night, you’ve got to say something; especially after all the bragging about how they were going to win Ohio *and* Illinois. I must say that the pin the Rahm tail on Hillary tactic was excellent even if they didn’t win the state. It made it much closer in Cook County than it might have been otherwise.

Super-delegates have been around for thirty years and have never decided the Democratic nomination. In 2008, Ms. Clinton had more super-delegates than Mr. Obama BUT, as I said above, they followed the election returns and flowed in his direction as the campaign wound down. That’s why Tad Devine’s new tactic is so unintentionally hilarious: politicians aren’t going to fall in line for last night’s big loser. I presume he knows that, but since he was one of the architects of the 2004 Kerry campaign, ya never know. He and Shrummy let their man get swift-boated without a prompt response, after all. Twas a pity, Big John is a good man and an excellent Secretary of State.

On the other side of the political coin, I remain dubious that the Stop Trump movement will, you know, be able to stop Trump. It’s hard to get all those clown cars driving in the same direction; even if John Kasich is *qualified* to be President. Unlike the MSM, I wouldn’t call him moderate because he’s not, but he’s neither crazy nor a total asshole, something one cannot say about the Insult Comedian.

Finally, is there  a whiter, preppier name than Tad Devine? It sounds like he rowed crew and wears polo shirts with the collar popped. I, for one, have never known a Tad, but I am familiar with the sad sack character actor Andy (Professional Comic Relief) Devine who is no relation. I mentioned Andy Devine so I could give Frank Zappa the last word with this song about the actor:

 

8 thoughts on “Today On Short Term Memory Theatre

  1. dakinikat says:

    Every time I see or hear Master Taddler I want to give him a time out. But, nice people won’t work with or for BS. They used to pray he wouldn’t come to committee meetings for Dodd Frank because he was so awful. And there’s this …

    http://m.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/anger-management-sanders-fights-for-employees-except-his-own/Content?oid=2834657

    Yeah. Superdelegates will all flock to the bully who ran as a Dem to get media coverage who beats up on the party and criticizes the President. Hypocritical and delusional strategy there dudes!

  2. iconoclast59 says:

    I live in Lake County, IL, in the far NE corner of the state. I’ve done lots of political work here, so I know the makeup of the voters. While we have some solid pockets of Democrats along the North Shore and in the county seat, overall, I’d describe the county as Republican red with a tinge of blue — fuchsia, if you will.

    Being the wonk I am, I delved into our county’s election returns. We had a LOT of Republicans who pulled Democratic ballots and voted for Bernie. I could tell by the precincts he won (i.e., the most redneck part of the county), and by the overall number of ballots cast. We had almost 10,000 more Democratic votes than Republican. The county’s more “blue” than it used to be, and it went for Obama in the last general election, but I know we’re nowhere near to comprising a majority. I’d be curious to know if there was crossover voting in other “red” areas of the state.

    I was surprised that, given the insanity of this election cycle, so many Republicans were willing to disregard their own race to attempt to influence ours.

    Also, I was really disheartened to find that the lowest voter turnout was in the low-income areas of the county. The people who should be most vested in the outcome are the ones who disconnected. Boo.

  3. darrelplant says:

    This seems a little overheated considering the difference in the number of delegates in IL, MO, NC, and OH was less than 7%, and less than 15% including FL. Sounds sort of Trumpy: “Look at my yuge polls!”

    • Peter Adrastos Athas says:

      The math is daunting for Team Sanders. The Clinton campaign learned the lessons of 2008 and are in a stronger position at this stage than Obama was then. Sanders needs to win big in some big states to have any chance of catching up. The numbers don’t lie. Why do you think Taddy is resorting to this gambit? He knows they’re losing.

  4. Peter Adrastos Athas says:

    Here’s what Nate Silver had to say about the maths of 2016: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-following-obamas-path-to-the-nomination/

  5. LC says:

    I would say the reasoning is more that Sanders wins *all* the upcoming states by something like 51-52%. Then Clinton has more pledged delegates, but Sanders has won more states, including having gained momentum throughout and basically gotten stronger as the race went on. In that case, the argument is that just because she’s ahead it doesn’t mean he isn’t actually the choice of the people. (Basically, if the early states when he wasn’t well known had a re-do, he would get higher totals.)

    The thing is, while he is going to do very well in the next few states, he isn’t going to win ALL of them from now on. I expect him to close the gap, but it will probably still finish something like 55-45. In that case, no superdelegates are going to switch.

    • Peter Adrastos Athas says:

      Winning the “most” states is irrelevant to winning the nomination. Obama/Clinton was very nearly a tie when it came to number of votes and states won. Sanders will have to win something like 60% of the vote in the remaining states. Remember his big win in Michigan? He got 49% of the votes. His people have also dropped the ball in New York state and won’t be competing for 40+ delegate slots. The math is against Sanders winning. Vote as you please but the math is the math is the math.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: